Opinion
Case No. 4D03-551.
Opinion filed June 23, 2004.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Peter D. Blanc, Judge, L.T. Case No. 00-DR-5974 FY.
Terry Ellen Fixel of Fixel LaRocco, Hollywood, and Edna L. Caruso of Caruso Burlington, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Peter L. Gladstone of Gladstone Weissman, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, and Nancy W. Gregoire of Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller, McIntrye Gregoire, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a dissolution judgment in which the husband asserts that the court erred in awarding the wife lump sum alimony in the form of the husband's interest in the marital home. The court did so to enable the wife and children to maintain their standard of living, to reduce future disputes between the parties, and because most of the funds used to purchase the home were gifts from the wife's parents. We affirm.
Both parties, who were married in 1985, once worked for the wife's father. The husband left that employment in 1989 and currently earns around $350,000 a year as a business broker. The wife has remained with her father's company and earns about $95,000 a year.
During the marriage the wife's parents gave the wife and husband $20,000 each annually, a total of $560,000. At the time of the dissolution the family had been living in a $2.5 million dollar home paid for partially with a one-time gift of $450,000 from the wife's parents. Subtracting the mortgage on the home leaves a net equity of about $1.5 million dollars. The wife has borrowed about $700,000 from her parents to pay for living expenses and professional fees. In all, the couple had $3.3 million in assets and $2.4 million in liabilities.
The court adopted the equal marital distribution suggested by the husband's CPA under which, as to the home, each party was awarded one-half of the equity and responsible for one-half of the mortgage.
In order for the wife and children to be able to continue to live in the home, however, the court awarded the wife $625,000 lump sum alimony, to be paid from the husband's one-half interest in the home, with the wife to assume the full liability for the mortgage. Additional reasons for the lump sum alimony were that the parties' accumulation of wealth resulted from the generosity of the wife's parents and the award would "provide the parties with as clean a break as possible, enable both of them to maintain the marital lifestyle, and stability for the children." The court also noted that if the wife's parents discontinued their generosity in the future, forcing her to sell the home, the sale would not create a dispute between the parties. Because of the lump sum, the court awarded the wife a reduced amount of permanent periodic alimony, $5,000 a month.
The husband argues that the court erred in the lump sum alimony award pointing out that it left him with only one-fourth of the marital assets. He cites Jessee v. Jessee, 839 So.2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), in which the court reversed the award of the marital home as lump sum alimony; however, that case is distinguishable. In Jessee the court grounded the award on the husband's attempt to avoid financial responsibility by intentionally losing his job. In reversing, the court pointed out that this fact had already been used to impute income and award periodic alimony and could not additionally support a lump sum award. That was not the basis of the award in this case.
Under section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2002) which governs both lump sum and periodic alimony, the court "shall consider all relevant economic factors," including the following, which we find particularly applicable: standard of living, financial resources of each party, contribution of each party to the marriage and any other factor necessary to do equity and justice. We conclude that each of the reasons given in this case by the trial court were proper for the court to consider under section 61.08, and that, under the facts, the lump sum award was not an abuse of discretion.
We have considered the remaining issues raised by the husband to be without merit. Affirmed.
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL DISPOSITION OF ANY TIMELY FILED MOTION FOR REHEARING.